Posted 11 years ago
Chrisnp
(310 items)
(Note: I have changed my earlier post on the British 1842 musket so that I can add more pictures to both the musket and this bayonet, and describe the bayonet in more detail.)
I think the British Pattern 1839 bayonet is interesting because of the unique method of attachment. In addition to the usual mortised slot which used the front sight as a bayonet stud, there was also a spring clip under the barrel of the musket that fit in a hole at the base of the bayonet socket to secure it more firmly. This predated the locking ring seen on typical socket bayonets made later. There is also a notch at the base of the bayonet that lined up with the front sight so that the musket could be sighted while the bayonet was in place.
The bayonet has some faint marks on the back of the socket, but too faint to read. The blade is 17 inches (43.18 cm) long and about an inch wide at its base.
As I said in the previous poste, I was not familiar with this locking system. With this system, if you did gig somebody & had resistance to with extracting, a simple wrong twist would disengage the lock. The other system of having the fore & aft slot run past the unlocking slot would be better but still could be unlocked at maybe a bad time. Strange that it took so long to simply come up with the cheap locking ring used later. Turner Kirkland of Dixie Gun Works did a study of Civil War medical record & stated that there was not one bayonet wound recorded during that war. By my research, I've found that there was an understanding between the soldiers on both side that, you don't use it on me & I won't use it on you. Each knew that if they used it that there would be serious retaliation from the other other side which was often brutal killing of those that used the thing. For that reason bayonet charges were very, very seldom used & in cases even refused by troops.
The way the clasp worked, you had to press it from the side to get it to unlatch, but yes I see your point that even this didn't mean the bayonet couldn't come loose.
You've mentioned Turner's work before, and I don't know why he couldn't find a record of a single bayonet wound, when the 1870 Surgeon General’s “Medical and Surgical History of the War of Rebellion (1861-1865)” showed a bit less than 1,000 bayonet wounds. Now, I admit that when you consider the slaughter that was the American Civil War, less than 1000 of any sort of wound is just a drop in the bucket, but historians point out that was only the soldiers who survived long enough to be treated at the hospital and does not count those who were killed or bled out before reaching medical aid – so the numbers are likely much higher. Of course I am sure even that number is dwarfed by the numbers killed by rifle fire and artillery.
Blunder, I want you to know that I respect you and consider you a CW friend, but I remember we had a heated discussion about this on another post. Perhaps we can agree to disagree?
Done! I agree to disagree. Actually, I don't remember that. Senility has its advantages. I just don't remember what they are! Oh yeah! You're always meeting new friends.
Thanks for he love petey, Vintagefran, fortapache, EJW-54, walksoftly, Blackshiep1, pw-collector, kerry10456, blunder and vanskyock24.